This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-09-22 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Indeed, in the exercise of the Court's review power, it seeks justice not merely for the victim but for the accused as well to guarantee that his constitutional rights are safeguarded.[29] Thus, we painstakingly sifted through the evidence presented in order to make our own determination as to appellant's guilt or innocence. But, we find no cogent reason to overturn the conclusion of the RTC that the prosecution sufficiently proved appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. | |||||
|
2004-03-04 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Appellant Ruel Bibohan had sent a handwritten letter to the Presidential Action Center seeking help to reopen his case which was duly indorsed to the Court. He claims that he was never asked to give his statement and was never given a chance to testify in court. He insists that he is innocent of the crime.[84] Suffice it to be stated that indeed our Constitution provides that an accused has a right to be heard by himself and counsel.[85] Due process of law in judicial proceedings requires that he must be given a chance to be heard and must be afforded a qualified and competent representation.[86] Where it appears that a counsel de oficio resorted to procedural shortcuts that amounted to inadequate counseling, the Court will strike down the proceedings in order to promote a judicious dispensation of justice.[87] Without hesitation, a decision would be rendered void for lack of due process if a party is deprived of the opportunity to be heard.[88] | |||||